Product Description

Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) is a New York City subway dispatcher whose ordinary day is thrown into chaos by an audacious crime: the hijacking of a subway train. Ryder (John Travolta), the criminal mastermind behind the hijacking and leader of a highly-armed gang of four, threatens to execute the train's passengers unless a large ransom is paid within one hour. As the tension mounts beneath his feet, Garber employs his vast knowledge of the subway system in a battle to outwit Ryder and save the hostages. But there's one riddle Garber can't solve: even if the thieves get the money, how can they possibly escape?

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #609 in DVD
• Brand: SONY PICTURES HOME ENT
• Released on: 2009-11-03
• Rating: R (Restricted)
• Aspect ratio: 2.40:1
• Formats: AC-3, Color, Dolby, Dubbed, Subtitled, Widescreen
• Original language: English, French, Spanish, Catalan
• Subtitled in: English, French, Spanish, Portuguese
• Dubbed in: French, Spanish
• Number of discs: 2
• Running time: 106 minutes

Customer Reviews

The Taking of Pelham 123 Movie Review from The Massie Twins
Though Scott's uniquely frenetic editing has been toned down from his previous films, his unmistakable style still frequents the action and accentuates the tension-filled premise. Denzel Washington's quick-witted and moderately corrupt dispatcher plays off of John Travolta's Wall Street savvy sociopath with plenty of clever exchanges, and the dark humor and suspense that find its way into the bloodshed culminates in an engaging game of cat and mouse. Not quite as slick as the original, and perhaps a little too conspicuous in its efforts at exuding cool, this latest take on the subway heist story still accomplishes entertainment at break-neck speed.

When a New York City subway train is hijacked, Rail Control Center dispatcher Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) becomes an unwitting negotiator for the ruthless criminals aboard. Led by the uncontainable Ryder (John Travolta), the hijackers demand ten million dollars in exchange for the seventeen hostages and offer only one hour to deliver the ransom. As minutes quickly count down, Garber must utilize his cunning and resourcefulness to buy time and catch the mercenary off guard as the situation goes from bad to catastrophic.

The unusual, highly stylized, frenzied editing is assuredly a now permanent technique for Tony Scott films - it's a signature method that he ceaselessly experiments with, frequently going overboard, and only occasionally able to harness. In Pelham it looks familiar but doesn't detract from the story, even if some moments of suspense are dulled by the blurred colors of slow-motion and missing frames. The remaining stunt sequences are exciting and tense, but hardly necessary. The car chases are never about catching someone, but rather beating the clock. It's action for action's sake, and while enjoyably destructive, it's entirely apparent.

Most audiences will not know that The Taking of Pelham 123 is based on a John Godey novel, or that it's been adapted into a movie twice before with the same name. While Scott's version stands on its own as a big-budget action movie, the purpose of specifically remaking this story is puzzling. Shouldn't the reasoning behind the revisiting of a popular plot be to improve upon some outstanding aspect? The use of the internet, cell phones, snipers, bloodshed, crude language and more give this new vision a sparklingly modernized feel, but when the movie draws to a close, it just can't compete with the 1974 version. Washington and Travolta have an intriguing chemistry, but even that can't outdo the cat-and-mouse mindgames between Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw, who played their counterparts in the first feature adaptation. Perhaps a title change could have appropriately distanced Scott's take from being endlessly compared to an infinitely superior film.

- The Massie Twins

If I can make it there...
I'm a big fan of the original version of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. It was a snapshot in time of New York City in the seventies; a cynical, bloated, bureaucratic mess that was entirely unprepared for a terrorist attack. In fact, there were actually concerns that the movie would inspire real terrorists to take a subway train hostage. The original featured everything from undercover cops to hippies, a crisp military professional turned terrorist to the random accidents of people in stressful situations. It even invented the "color codenames" later used in Reservoir Dogs.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is catnip to movie directors in the same way that single stage sets are to theatrical directors - be it a subway or a stage with just two chairs, this is a film about two men facing off in a battle of wits. The majority of the movie takes place over an intercom between a terrorist and a dispatcher, with occasional cuts to the havoc their conversation causes throughout New York City. And if the terrorist represents the international Other that is a threat to our national security, the dispatcher represents the everyman of New York, our hardworking servicemen and women who lost their lives on September 11. With material like that, it's no wonder the film has been remade twice.

Director Tony Scott updates the film to modern day sensibilities. The villain, Ryder (John Travolta in full crazy mode), isn't a mercenary applying crisp military precision to the art of extortion; he's a (SPOILER ALERT) former Wall Street tycoon - slightly lower on the villain totem pole than industrialists who pollute the environment. The undercover cop moves into action immediately rather than later in the film, because of course New York's finest would respond quickly to a terrorist attack. And the dispatcher, Walter Garber (Denzel Washington, looking appropriately puffy and slouched) has a more complicated past and a bigger role.

Unfortunately, the film suffers as a result. In the original, military precision was entirely the point. The trains never ran on time, so challenging New York to meet a deadline was both a delicious irony and a sticking point with a former military officer who expects nothing less than perfection from his men and from the negotiators. Here, that point is muddled by a sort of "we're all into this together" blue collar ethic that Ryder projects into Garber. Their dialogue still crackles, but this simple change dilutes the force of the film.

The four-man team of bad guys is reduced to two speaking parts, with the other two generic thugs. The emphasis is clearly on Travolta and Washington, and it's refreshing to have a movie that's not afraid to spend some time letting actors just act. There's a lot of talking in this film and that's not a bad thing.

The movie struggles with the modern updates. A live wireless webcam feed gets broadcast to the Internet without government interference (yeah, right). Even though the laptop's battery dies, it's mysteriously back on a moment later. And the two teens on either side of the webcam come off as self-absorbed morons.

Because this is a big budget action film, the quiet subtlety of the original version is glossed over in favor of an MTA agent handling a hostage negotiation, wielding a gun, and ultimately engaging in a showdown with the bad guy. Since Ryder has no principles to speak of, the conclusion is particularly unsatisfying.

Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is a serviceable action film but not a particularly good update of the original. The seventies version was more of a drama with an ensemble cast that was comfortable playing second fiddle to the biggest character of all: New York City.

Watchable but UTTERLY forgettable. 2.5 stars.
TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3 will be forgotten in a matter of a few weeks. Then it'll come out on DVD, have a brief burst of activity, and then fade forever from the cultural landscape. It is such a tremendously disposable movie, evaporating from the mind even as the closing credits roll behind you as you walk out of the theatre.

This is not to say that it isn't diverting and mildly entertaining...it's just ultimately so unremarkable.

And this is too bad, because the original movie from the `70s still sticks with me to this day. In the `70s, the story was actually somewhat unique. We have a humble, aging, unambitious transit cop who through just sheer bad luck ends up on the intercom with a cold, ruthless killer who has hijacked an NYC subway car purely for the chance to make a pile of money. Will this working-stiff be able to outlast & outwit the dangerous sociopath? The film came out in a time when ruthless sociopaths were relatively new to the movie screen (the looney in DIRTY HARRY also springs to mind). Very few people had played the kind of super-smart, cold-blooded mastermind that Robert Shaw pulled off so well in PELHAM. And few actors had the "schlubby" looks and ordinary common-sense (and public goodwill) of Walter Matthau, who pulled off this unusual role (for him) with effortlessness. These two stars were ably supported by a nice supporting cast, including Martin Balsam as Shaw's mild-mannered associate in crime and a chilling Hector Elizondo as Shaw's trigger man, a criminal more interested in killing than making money.

So when the bad guys demand their million dollars, and then put an impossible deadline on receiving the money: "have it here in one hour or I will kill one hostage for every minute you're late," the tension level was sky-high. This was a grimy, crime-ridden NYC...and it was a low tech time.

In Tony Scott's update, NYC is shiny and clean & high-tech is all over the place. Heck, one of the hostages inadvertently streams the entire even to the world through his laptop. Walter Matthau's mismatched clothes and weary demeanor are replaced by Denzel Washington's crisp intelligence. (This actually works okay. It's a very different character, but Washington gives one of his more credible performances of late.) And Robert Shaw's trenchcoat wearing, ultra-calm madman is replaced by a tattooed, bug-eyed, wildly laughing and foul-mouthed John Travolta. Worst of all, the well-thought-out supporting cast of criminals is replaced by some very generic "guys with machine guns" and a very underused Luis Guzman, who is barely asked to give a performance.

Both films have the same ticking clock, and that is the part of the story that always works. Tension IS created, as the two adversaries bond via their old-school CB radios. John Torturro is a welcome addition as a hostage negotiator. And a subplot is created to give some added complexity to Washington's character. This sub-plot is not really needed, but it does add a little moral texturing...as though it is no longer acceptable to have a good guy against a bad guy. Nowadays, even the good guys need to have some questionable events in their past.

James Gandolfini is amusing as New York's mayor...but honestly, I think that was mostly because it was amusing to think of Tony Soprano as the mayor of NYC. The part is sketchily written...although Gandolfini is clearly having a lot of fun with it, even when the part gets hokey at the end.

Tony Scott is NOT a director I admire. Knowing he was at the helm almost kept me out of the theater. His super-saturated colors and jumpy, flashing editing style tend to annoy the heck out of me. It's all style that doesn't contribute one bit to substance. He makes us aware that we're watching a movie when we should actually be absorbed by it. (MAN OF FIRE is the most egregious example of this...but most of his movies are "over directed.") And Scott is guilty here again. His way of showing us how much time is left on the clock is, frankly, hugely distracting. And he actually uses something akin to Google Maps to show us the progress of a car through NYC. It flashes by too fast to be useful, yet is there long enough to annoy.

But worst of all is John Travolta's horrific performance. It seems as though he really just doesn't know how to give a modulated performance anymore. In PELHAM, he yells, cusses (boy, does he cuss!!), giggles, grimaces and scowls. All in the service of a thoroughly unconvincing performance. Apparently, he's never learned that less can sometimes be more. He's acting in the style that Tony Scott directs. He succeeds in creating the most unmenacing psycho-killer in quite some time.

The film also suffers from a very anti-climactic ending. It assumes that you've grown to care a lot about the "moral gray area" in Washington's character...which we have not. Thus, the end doesn't work too well, and when the closing credits roll, we dutifully walk out of the theatre, wondering where to go eat or if anything good is on TV.